The great and awesome Day of the Lord

[Mithrae]

As y'all know despite being raised as one I'm no longer a Christian and haven't been for over a decade: I don't accept core Christian doctrines (eg. I'd only guess ~70-90% probability for the existence of some kind of 'God' and consider it significantly more probable than not that Jesus didn't rise from the dead), and more importantly I don't even adhere to the teachings of Jesus (to sell what you have and give to the poor, don't worry about tomorrow but trust in God's provision, stop working for money and start working for the kingdom of God).

But I try to keep an open mind, and over the past ten months or so I've been troubled by the topic of biblical prophecy. It actually began all the way back in 2011, when one prophecy enthusiast came to the forum with all kinds of fallacies and arbitrary conclusions, claiming that his pet theory had only 112 trillion to one odds of being false. So in response I did a more objective assessment, and came up with something like 100 to one instead; which is not mind-blowing or miraculous, but is still somewhat intriguing.

I've privately gnawed on that issue at times over the years, but never managed to falsify it to my own satisfaction and even found a couple of additional points worth considering too. So hopefully the rest of you can help prove me wrong.

As I see it, if a prediction has been made and parts of it had already come true, that's either coincidence or it's indicative of genuine foreknowledge. Hence the likelihood that the rest will come true is the inverse of the likelihood that the first part was coincidence. (Plus the likelihood that it would happen anyway, prophecy or no, but in the case of biblical prophecies that's basically zero and therefore irrelevant.) That is absolutely critical to my reasoning, but I can't find a fault with it: Either the fulfillment of the first part was coincidence or it was indeed foreknown, and if it was foreknown then the rest of it presumably is foreknown also; so the likelihood that the first part was not coincidence is roughly the same as the likelihood that the whole prophecy is genuine.

Thus we have -
Prediction: Prophecy and interpretation
Confirmation: Signs and complete fulfillment

The biggest problem I've found with many Christian prophecy enthusiasts is that they tend to include their interpretation as part of the 'sign,' like that fellow from 2011 (and with some particularly enthusiastic folk, simply make up what constitutes a sign from whole cloth!), and that's a key error I've tried to avoid in my reasoning. In each case I've tried to justify an interpretation of biblical prophecy as legitimate, not arbitrary, and only then begun to consider how likely it is that the 'sign' which came to pass is mere coincidence. I will try to be as brief as possible with the signs I've been interested in, but I'll still put them in another post because this is already getting on the long side for an OP. However I'll briefly comment on two of the most obvious objections first:

1 - Biblical prophecies are too vague
It's a fair point, but firstly, that is why I've tried to specifically quantify the likelihood of a fulfillment or 'sign' being mere coincidence, distinct from and after establishing a legitimate interpretation; and secondly, what would the alternative be? If a prophecy were very specific then anytime since 400 CE or so basically any 'fulfillment' would be subject to the criticism that it was engineered by Christians to match the existing prophecy. Some miraculous exceptions which could not possibly be engineered by humans might apply (though not for any of the ones below), but then there's the endless debate over whether there's good reasons why a deity would not openly and universally reveal himself in such a manner. Criticisms on those grounds are not particularly valid to my mind, since they simply assume certain things about what 'God' or prophecy should be like, rather than addressing the actual data available.

2 - Seemingly fulfilled prophecies, even remarkable ones, are still coincidental products of large numbers; many many prophecies and thousands of years of history
The charge that some biblical prophecies are obviously false prophecies (eg. those of Ezekiel or those that 'Matthew' put in Jesus' mouth about his return) falls more into this category than being a valid objection in its own right, I think; after all on its own, it amounts to nothing more than the absurd 'some prophecies are false therefore they all are.' However the more nuanced recognition of how large numbers interact with the notion of coincidence is important, and is potentially valid, if it can be shown that that the real probability of a 'fulfillment' is in fact other than what I have calculated. I have tried to be careful in considering other scenarios, other possible 'fulfillments' in my estimations of probability, so I don't consider it a valid objection to blithely state that it simply must have been more probable than I've concluded.



Questions for debate:
Is the reasoning above valid, particularly the section in blue?
And if so, are the assessments of probability for the prophecies/signs in post #2 correct (or at least reasonable)?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 40 by Tcg]

See edit for your most important question. Anything else?

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 40 by Tcg]

See edit for your most important question. Anything else?

Sure. Please respond to this question:

ref:The great and awesome Day of the Lord

[FarWanderer]

As I see it, if a prediction has been made and parts of it had already come true, that's either coincidence or it's indicative of genuine foreknowledge. Hence the likelihood that the rest will come true is the inverse of the likelihood that the first part was coincidence. (Plus the likelihood that it would happen anyway, prophecy or no, but in the case of biblical prophecies that's basically zero and therefore irrelevant.) That is absolutely critical to my reasoning, but I can't find a fault with it: Either the fulfillment of the first part was coincidence or it was indeed foreknown, and if it was foreknown then the rest of it presumably is foreknown also; so the likelihood that the first part was not coincidence is roughly the same as the likelihood that the whole prophecy is genuine.

Thus we have -
Prediction: Prophecy and interpretation
Confirmation: Signs and complete fulfillment

Well sure if you assume that an apparently fulfilled segment of a prophecy was due to foreknowledge, then we can reasonably assume the rest of the prophecy is foreknown as well.

Though I am not sure why this is an important topic, because the main and prerequisite argument will always be over whether there is any foreknowledge involved at all.

1 - Biblical prophecies are too vague
It's a fair point, but firstly, that is why I've tried to specifically quantify the likelihood of a fulfillment or 'sign' being mere coincidence, distinct from and after establishing a legitimate interpretation;

If you are successful in establishing a fixed and specific interpretation independent of the events of the world that occurred since the time of writing, then this would be a fair answer to the issue of vagueness.

However, that's much easier said than done.

and secondly, what would the alternative be? If a prophecy were very specific then anytime since 400 CE or so basically any 'fulfillment' would be subject to the criticism that it was engineered by Christians to match the existing prophecy. Some miraculous exceptions which could not possibly be engineered by humans might apply (though not for any of the ones below), but then there's the endless debate over whether there's good reasons why a deity would not openly and universally reveal himself in such a manner. Criticisms on those grounds are not particularly valid to my mind, since they simply assume certain things about what 'God' or prophecy should be like, rather than addressing the actual data available.

If vagueness is a problem, that problem doesn't go away just because non-vagueness would raise a different problem.

2 - Seemingly fulfilled prophecies, even remarkable ones, are still coincidental products of large numbers; many many prophecies and thousands of years of history
The charge that some biblical prophecies are obviously false prophecies (eg. those of Ezekiel or those that 'Matthew' put in Jesus' mouth about his return) falls more into this category than being a valid objection in its own right, I think; after all on its own, it amounts to nothing more than the absurd 'some prophecies are false therefore they all are.' However the more nuanced recognition of how large numbers interact with the notion of coincidence is important, and is potentially valid, if it can be shown that that the real probability of a 'fulfillment' is in fact other than what I have calculated.

I don't see what that has to do with it. The issue of large numbers is about the remarkability of coincidences, not their probability.

A 1-in-100 coincidence is remarkable when looked at in isolation, but group it with 99 other 99-in-100 outcomes and your overall result is exactly what you'd expect from random guessing. You have to consider everything as a whole, not just cherry pick the most stand-out outcomes.

I have tried to be careful in considering other scenarios, other possible 'fulfillments' in my estimations of probability, so I don't consider it a valid objection to blithely state that it simply must have been more probable than I've concluded.

This is speaking more to the issue of vagueness, not large numbers. It's the vagueness that artificially inflates the probability of "fulfillment" by leaving open multiple vectors of apparent fulfillment.

Questions for debate:
Is the reasoning above valid, particularly the section in blue?
And if so, are the assessments of probability for the prophecies/signs in post #2 correct (or at least reasonable)?

My ability to address post 2 is limited. I have little biblical background.

[JehovahsWitness]

Sure. Please respond to this question:

ref:The great and awesome Day of the Lord

Certainly HERE
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 182#927182

[Tcg]

Sure. Please respond to this question:

ref:The great and awesome Day of the Lord

Certainly HERE
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 182#927182

I see. You are now editing your response to rely on pedantics.

How do you know that the message you claim to have received, in whatever method you claim to have received it, was not a message from a demon or even the big guy Satan?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 45 by Tcg]

I don't know it's faith, I BELIEVE. My conclusions are faith based. That's all I can tell you at present.

Is there anything else?

JW

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 45 by Tcg]

I don't know it's faith, I BELIEVE. My conclusions are faith based. That's all I can tell you at present.

Is there anything else?

JW

Sure. Why do you BELIEVE that which you can't provide any support for?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 47 by Tcg]

You are right, I cannot SUPPLY the support, but I can present/ tell you what that support is. It is as follows : FAITH which is a product of God's holy spirit.

That is the support.


JW

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 47 by Tcg]

You are right, I cannot SUPPLY the support, but I can present/ tell you what that support is. It is as follows : FAITH which is a product of God's holy spirit.

That is the support.


JW

Yes, we agree. You cannot supply any support for your claim.

Once again, you are simply referring to what you claim to be the source of your claim. Of course you can't provide any support for what you claim to be the source of your claim either.

This is no support at all, but simply an unsupported claim which depends on another unsupported claim.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 47 by Tcg]

You are right, I cannot SUPPLY the support, but I can present/ tell you what that support is. It is as follows : FAITH which is a product of God's holy spirit.

That is the support.


JW

Yes, we agree. You cannot supply any support for your claim.
.

Excellent, I always find it satisfying to find common ground.


Well, thanks for a lively exchange,

Peace again to you and yours,


JEHOVAH'S WITNESS